By the declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, in
the year 1776, acceded to by our Convention on the ninth,
the late colony of New-York became an independent state.
All the inhabitants, who were subjects under the former
government, and who did not withdraw themselves upon
the change which took place, were to be considered as citizens,
owing allegiance to the new government, This, at
least, is the legal presumption; and this was the principle,
in fact, upon which all the measures of our public councils
have been grounded. Duties have been exacted, and punishments
inflicted according to this rule. If any exceptions
to it were to be admitted, they could only flow from the
indulgence of the state to such individuals, as from peculiar
circumstances might desire to be permitted to stand upon
a different footing.

The inhabitants of the southern district, before they fell
under the power of the British army, were as much citizens
of the state as the inhabitants of other parts of it.
They must, therefore, continue to be such, unless they
have been divested of that character by some posterior circumstance.
This circumstance must, either be--

Their having, by the fortune of war, fallen under the
power of the British army.

Their having forfeited their claim by their own misconduct.

Their having been left out of the compact by some subsequent
association of the body of the state, or

Their having been dismembered by treaty.

The first of these circumstances according to the fundamental
principles of government, and the constant practice
of nations could have no effect in working a forfeiture
of their citizenship. To allow it such an effect, would be to
convert misfortune into guilt; it would be in many instances,
to make the negligence of the society, in not providing
adequate means of defence for the several parts,
the crime of those parts which were the immediate sufferers
by that negligence. It would tend to the dissolution of
society, by loosening the ties which bind the different parts
together, and justifying those who should for a moment
fall under the power of a conqueror, not merely in yielding
such a submission as was exacted from them, but in
taking a willing, interested and decisive part with him.

It was the policy of the revolution, to inculcate upon
every citzen the obligation of renouncing his habitation,
property, and every private concern for the service of his
country, and many of us have scarcely yet learned to consider
it as less than treason to have acted in a different
manner. But it is time we should correct the exuberances
of opinions propagated through policy, and embraced
from enthusiasm; and while we admit, that those who did
act so disinterested and noble a part, deserve the applause
and, wherever they can be bestowed with propriety the rewards
of their country, we should cease to impute indiscriminate
guilt to those, who, submitting to the accidents
of war, remained with their habi[ta]tions and property. We
should learn, that this conduct is tolerated by the general
sense of mankind; and that according to that sense, whenever
the state recovers the possession of such parts as were
for a time subdued, the citizens return at once to all the
rights, to which they were formerly entitled.

As to the second head of forfeiture by misconduct, there
is no doubt, that all such as remaining within the British
lines, did not merely yield an obedience, which they could
not refuse, without ruin; but took a voluntary and interested
part with the enemy, in carrying on the war, became
subject to the penalties of treason. They could not however,
by that conduct, make themselves aliens, because
though they were bound to pay a temporary and qualified
obedience to the conqueror, they could not transfer their
eventual allegiance from the state to a foreign power. By
becoming aliens too, they would have ceased to be traitors;
and all the laws of the state passed during the revolution,
by which they are considered and punished as subjects,
would have been, by that construction, unintelligible and
unjust. The idea indeed of citizens transforming themselves
into aliens, by taking part against the state, to which
they belong, is altogether of new-invention, unknown and
inadmissible in law, and contrary to the nature of the social
compact.

But were this not the case, an insurmountable difficulty
would still remain, for how shall we ascertain who are
aliens or traitors, let us call them which we will. It has been
seen that the boundaries of the British lines cannot determine
the question; for this would be to say, that the merely
falling under the power of the British army, constituted
every man a traitor or an alien. It would be to confound
one third of the citizens of the state in promiscuous guilt
and degradation, without evidence, or enquiry. It would
be to make crimes, which are in their nature personal and
individual, aggregate and territorial. Shall we go into an
enquiry to ascertain the crime of each person? This would
be a prosecution; and the treaty forbids all future prosecutions.
Shall the Legislature take the map and make a geographical
delineation of the rights and disqualifications of
its citizens? This would be to measure innocence and guilt,
by latitute and longitude. It would be to condemn and punish,
not one man, but thousands for supposed offences,
without giving them an opportunity of making their defence.
God forbid that such an act of barefaced tyranny
should ever disgrace our history! God forbid that the body
of the people should be corrupt enough to wish it, or even
to submit to it!